AAG40 FAQ

It seems to me from Variable’s second post that he didn’t question or misunderstand the meaning of the rule as written, but was rather questioning whether or not the wording reflected the intent of the rule. It does indeed.

I just don’t see any other way you could possibly interpret rule #9, and was sticking up for Larry/Krieg because they’re often criticized (by me) for ambiguous rules. However, this one is not ambiguous.

Yes, Larry and I took an (unfortunate) attitude early in the Alpha process that the wording of the test rules modifications didn’t need to be as polished as it would be in the final product. However, that’s changed since you pointed out the error of our ways! We’re now trying harder to avoid ambiguities.

It seems to me from Variable’s second post that he didn’t question or misunderstand the meaning of the rule as written, but was rather questioning whether or not the wording reflected the intent of the rule. It does indeed.

I just don’t see any other way you could possibly interpret rule #9, and was sticking up for Larry/Krieg because they’re often criticized (by me) for ambiguous rules. However, this one is not ambiguous.

Yes, Larry and I took an (unfortunate) attitude early in the Alpha process that the wording of the test rules modifications didn’t need to be as polished as it would be in the final product. However, that’s changed since you pointed out the error of our ways! We’re now trying harder to avoid ambiguities.

Krieg has understood me perfectly. All I was double checking was the intent of the rules in the case where Japan has not made any threatening moves against the US or UK. I got my answer and prefer we just stick to the facts.

As for the other stuff between Emperor Mollari and Gamerman01 et al: I regret ever posing the question here. Krieg gave me a simple answer on Larry’s site which is all I wanted. Mods, please feel free to remove any material that does not contribute to resolving FAQs…

In our last Global game (playing Alpha+.2) my Soviet Union attacked the westernmost territory in Mongolia, so we placed neutral units on the rest of the territories. My opponent then used one of Japan’s tanks from Manchuria to blitz through two Mongolian territories to capture them both to get the IPC values (the spaces were 1 and 2 IPCs). Is that allowed?

But a defending sub (if not hit) always had a choice of either retreat or submerge (if a destroyer is not present)?

No, defending subs can never move to a different zone. The only defending unit that can ever move to a different zone is a defending fighter that lost its carrier. It can move 1 space to friendly landing place.

In our last Global game (playing Alpha+.2) my Soviet Union attacked the westernmost territory in Mongolia, so we placed neutral units on the rest of the territories. My opponent then used one of Japan’s tanks from Manchuria to blitz through two Mongolian territories to capture them both to get the IPC values (the spaces were 1 and 2 IPCs). Is that allowed?

I don’t see any Mongolian territories with IPC values. Did you mean 1 and 2 Infantry, perhaps?
You can’t blitz to claim a neutral because you claim a friendly neutral (which Mongolia and all other true neutrals have become, to the Axis) in the noncombat phase. You can only blitz in the combat movement phase.

Maybe you guys don’t know that when you invade a true neutral all true neutrals in the world become friendly to the enemy? If Russia takes the westernmost territory in Mongolia to violate neutrality, you have just allowed the Axis to walk into Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, the African ones, etc etc for free, getting all the infantry and IPC values.

But a defending sub (if not hit) always had a choice of either retreat or submerge (if a destroyer is not present)?

No, defending subs can never move to a different zone. The only defending unit that can ever move to a different zone is a defending fighter that lost its carrier. It can move 1 space to friendly landing place.

Krieg, I just want to confirm my understanding of movement of a Mech infantry as I understand the definition of “blitzing” as there are SO many questions relating to “blitzing”.

Blitzing refers ONLY to taking control of an unoccupied territory as the first space of a 2 space move (by tank or tank/mech inf). Change in control is the defining feature of a Blitz, not movement itself. It never refers to the movement of 2 spaces as a combat move in and of itself, correct? Combat moving 2 spaces (total) through a friendly territory and ending in a hostile territory is thus NOT a blitz (as a hostile empty territory was not captured).

Thus a mech infantry can move during combat in 3 possible ways:

1 space, into a hostile territory (empty or otherwise) and stopping.

Alone - 2 spaces, through a friendly territory and into a hostile territory (empty or otherwise) and stopping (this is NOT blitzing)

Paired - 2 spaces, through an empty hostile territory which is Blitzed (control established), and into any other friendly or hostile territory.

Or, is ANY 2 space movement in the combat phase considered a “blitz”, in which case a mech infantry can only move two spaces during the combat phase with a tank, even if no empty hostile territory is “blitzed” in that first move?

You have it right with your three options. Think of mechs as infantry units that can move two spaces. If they’re paired with a tank, they can blitz as well. If not, they have to stop in the first enemy territory they enter, even if it’s empty.

You have it right with your three options. Think of mechs as infantry units that can move two spaces. If they’re paired with a tank, they can blitz as well. If not, they have to stop in the first enemy territory they enter, even if it’s empty.

good. because I’ve seen so many posts refer to two space movement as blitzing that my brain was starting to bleed.

Blitzing refers ONLY to taking control of an unoccupied territory as the first space of a 2 space move (by tank or tank/mech inf). Change in control is the defining feature of a Blitz, not movement itself. It never refers to the movement of 2 spaces as a combat move in and of itself, correct? Combat moving 2 spaces (total) through a friendly territory and ending in a hostile territory is thus NOT a blitz (as a hostile empty territory was not captured).

“To streamline the game and correct balance issues, Global 1940 is under revision and a new ruleset will be published in 2011”.

I guess this means that only new rules will be published 2011 (But how? Downloadable rulebooks on the official website?) or is there a plan to launch a complete new set (with new boards etc.)?

I’m pretty sure this is in reference to the work Larry is doing with the alpha+.2 setup. When he is finished it will most likely be posted in PDF form like the AAP40 faq. He is also going to submit it to WotC to be included in future reprints of the game. Though the future reprints may or may not occur.

I don’t have the patience of IL , so i won’t engage in an endless arguing contest with you.
No, IL doesn’t have patience. In fact, he believes to know everything so he loved to arguing. :mrgreen:
Mantlefan got his point of view and you got yours but i’m not suprised you won’t engage because you’re not
able to reply when some one send you a message!